How about:
You want herpes.
Or
The empire state building does not exist on the moon. — Merkwurdichliebe
Experts extract complication from simplicity. — whollyrolling
which prompts the question, why post on a philosophy forum. — Wayfarer
For me, the problem with the God debate is that it requires a definition of ‘God’ that can be agreed upon and then objectively measured/observed. Does this particular definition of God exist - yes or no? — Possibility
— Wayfarer
Or said another way...
...I didn't answer the question because there are no decent answers. — Frank Apisa
But if our definitions of existence and non-existence bear little resemblance to reality, then all such questions are rendered pointless. — Jake
I’m not looking for a definition of ‘God’ - I’m looking for an understanding of the universe that is fully inclusive of these experiences we associate with ‘God’ and spirituality, rather than of what anyone claims to ‘know’ about ‘God’. — Possibility
What matters is that people keep referring to experiences of ‘God’ as if the personal and reciprocal nature of such experiences point to the existence of an actual, sentient ‘being’. Like our experience and awareness of ‘time’, it could easily point to our ignorance of the complex relations between all events in the universe, and may effectively ‘disappear’ as an external entity as our awareness develops. — Possibility
The entire question is pointless — Possibility
Attempting to break down “the big question” into smaller ones, this thread about spirit was created. One would imagine that if there is indeed an Absolute source, there is a good chance that It would intersect or interact with us generally in the realm of what is described as spirit. And on the other hand if there is no Creator, the needs, hopes, dreams, and weaknesses might also reside in our spirit, or higher/deeper consciousness.Such a willful denial of reason, such a determined clinging to a comfortable fantasy... Not the religious condition, but the human condition.
To prove this, observe how I keep typing such things over and over again despite any evidence that it will ever do any good. Me too. Clinging to the self flattering fantasy that I can make some kind of difference here. I see the evidence of my delusion, I see the evidence is inconvenient, so I ignore it, and keep on doing the same old thing, over and over and over. — Jake
At human scale we experience time as a reliable fixed measure, which is reasonable and practical because at human scale that's very close to the case. But what science is teaching us is that what seems an obvious given in our everyday human scale experience can not be automatically assumed to be binding on everything everywhere.
Variable time speed seems relevant to the God debate because it further illustrates a pattern of assumptions that often attempt to impose facts that are reasonable at human scale on to the immeasurably larger scale addressed by God theories. — Jake
The naïveté, hubris, or emotional longing that compels us to declare and define absolutely the nature and existence (or non-existence) of the Absolute is quite understandable and all-too-human. — 0 thru 9
To put in Buddhist terms, let not desire or aversion lead us into ignorance. — 0 thru 9
About one’s deeply held beliefs, what sometimes may happen is that a person (often at a crucial moment of their life) has an internal experience. An experience that seems to cut to the core of their very being, in terms of identity, feelings, perceptions, and more. This feels seismic, and they intuit that it would be unwise to completely ignore it as a reaction to eating pizza late at night, or something. So far, so good.
Problems appear when a person expects anyone else to immediately feel the same fear and trembling awe. — 0 thru 9
Yes, that is a reasonable approach to that which seems to beyond reason. (Sometimes thinking about the possibility of the Divine is like trying to catch hydrogen atoms in a butterfly net, lol. Or as Huston Smith put it, a dog trying to comprehend the contents of a book by giving it “the sniff test”). Without totally abandoning healthy skepticism, I think we can learn from each other’s experiences.The question I keep asking is: how do these experiences we associate with ‘God’ relate to each other and to the experiences/understanding/knowledge of the universe that we can verify? What is it about the universe and how humans relate to it that enables these expressions of experience to make sense to those who experienced them? And if I leap to a conclusion based on what information I have, and then encounter those who disagree, I have to exhaust the very high probability that they at least have experiences of the universe that I don’t. Like the blind men and the elephant... — Possibility
There is something of value in a “messy way”. Life is messy, birth is difficult, death is a downer. We intuitively know this, and eventually make some kind of peace with it. The experience of consciousness, and the awareness of experience is foundational to us. It is difficult to package and market, which is probably why simplistic slogans to rally the troops are so prevalent... and unfortunately so effective at controlling behavior.I realise it’s a messy way to approach it, particularly to those who prefer to work systematically or analytically (or alone). It often feels like I’m piecing together a jigsaw puzzle without an image - one that doesn’t have any edge pieces to speak of. I’m not looking for a definition of ‘God’ - I’m looking for an understanding of the universe that is fully inclusive of these experiences we associate with ‘God’ and spirituality, rather than of what anyone claims to ‘know’ about ‘God’. — Possibility
A noble goal, which if achieved, might deserve a Nobel prize, lol. They may be two sides of the same coin. (There’s no anti-Catholic like an ex-Catholic, as a saying goes). The polarity of beliefs, be they religious, political, sociological, or other, is attention-grabbing and divisive by nature. It’s a love-hate relationship. One person’s meat is another’s poison. For example, some entertainments I used to devour years ago, I can no longer stomach. Strength is a quality, but more is definitely NOT always better (despite appearances to the contrary).Agreed, very understandable and very human. I'm attempting to develop more compassion for this need and a more realistic acceptance of it. I managed this a long time ago with the religious, but apparently still have considerable work to do in regards to the atheist true believers. — Jake
Definitely. Just adding to what @Wayfarer wrote above. Buddhism (and Taoism, which if I recall correctly you had elsewhere expressed an interest in) has a useful way of reconciling the opposites, as in the symbol and idea of yin and yang. Apparent opposites that complement rather than compete or wage battle against the other. In very general Buddhist terms, the ignorance you refer to might be more like an acceptance of sunyata, or emptiness. Ignorance (in Buddha’s thought, such as I understand it) would be more like pounding one’s own head with a hammer, and taking aspirin for the pain.I'm not debating here, just suggesting that if ignorance is the reality of our situation then let's embrace it and mine this asset for the value that it offers. Not sure how this relates to Buddhism though. For now it's merely Jakeism. :smile: — Jake
Yes. Sometimes, I wonder if our animal pets listen to all our babbling, and think to themselves “there they go... human-splaining everything again! :monkey:Or, to put it another way, problems appear when we try to translate an experience in to an explanation. A better approach may be to skip the explanations, and offer some practical tips on how the other person might have their own experience. An even better approach would probably be to wait until they ask for such tips. :smile: — Jake
No, I'm just saying that there is an enormously undefined grey area in which ordinary language operates, and it is a sort of cop-out, philosophically speaking. — Merkwurdichliebe
Good. Excellent.This is where the distinction between science talk and ordinary language is useful. Ordinary language takes priority in my book, so, although I don't disagree with good science, I don't take that to be a justification for going around saying that the the Empire State building doesn't exist. That's rightly seen as a ridiculous thing to go around saying. It exists.
The question, "Does God exist?", is probably best met with another question, namely, "First, what are you talking about?". — S
where my method has caused a problem. — S
As method, then, reliance on ordinary language is wrong. — tim wood
Thanks for your reply, and for starting this thread which hopefully (with all of our best efforts) will generate more light than heat. — 0 thru 9
In very general Buddhist terms, the ignorance you refer to might be more like an acceptance of sunyata, or emptiness. — 0 thru 9
Yes, so long as one feels one has "The Answer", whether theist or atheist, there is really no need for an investigation, so the process degrades in to a competitive ideological shouting match. — Jake
But the emptiness can heal the wound. Not because it's some magic mystery medicine, but simply because it's not thought, it's not a conceptual machine which depends entirely on the processes of division. It's not that logical to assume one can reach the experience of unity via a device whose specific purpose is to divide reality in to conceptual parts.
I have little idea how this might relate to Buddhism, because as may have long been obvious, I'm not well read. Well, that is, I don't read many books. — Jake
So the problem is our consciousness. Our consciousness, which means the way you think, the way you live, the way you believe, the way you react, your behavior, all that is your consciousness, which is your life. That consciousness is you. The content of that consciousness makes consciousness…
This content has been put together through time; it isn’t one day’s acquirement. Our brain is the result of time, evolution. Our brain is not your brain and my brain, but the brain of mankind. This is difficult for you to see, and even recognize, because we have been so conditioned that it is my brain. And it is your brain. But if you observe, human beings right throughout the world go through enormous turmoil, poverty, anxiety, insecurity, confusion, psychologically wounded, fear, fear of being hurt, physically, fear of psychological hurts, fear of death, and the enquiry, what is there beyond…
That is the content of our consciousness. And as long as there’s that content, which is always divisive, which is always fragmented, our action must be fragmented. Right?
So the problem then is: is it possible for the content of that consciousness to be dissolved?
As I have mentioned previously, this theme is rather similar to the teaching of Krishnamurti. — Wayfarer
Very similar, right? — Wayfarer
So is Krishnamurti 'an authority'? — Wayfarer
That said, Krishnamurti had a confident authoritative manner of speaking which did unintentionally suck some people in to authority worship. — Jake
Be Here Now" — Jake
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.